DA keeps secret list of bad cops

'Brady index' identifies untrustworthy witnesses for prosecutors, but not the public

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis keeps a list of law enforcement officers that her prosecutors do not trust as witnesses in criminal trials, and the office will not say how many people are on the list or which agencies employ them.

The so-called Brady Index is a closely guarded secret that includes officers and deputies with a track record of lying or other misconduct that could undermine credibility on the witness stand.

The DA’s office rejected U-T Watchdog’s request for the list, saying the public interest in effective law enforcement outweighs any benefit to disclosing names on the index or even which agencies employ them.

WATCHDOG

Send us your investigative news tips

“Any information that may lead to the identification of the officers, including the information you requested as an alternative to the names, is also confidential,” appellate division chief Laura Tanney wrote in response to a California Public Records Act request.

Many prosecutors maintain a Brady Index to help ensure cases are not overturned on appeal due to dishonesty or misconduct in the backgrounds of officers testifying at trial.

The lists are named after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1963 that found prosecutors wrongly withheld exculpatory evidence from lawyers representing a murder defendant.

Under Brady v. Maryland, prosecutors must tell defense lawyers if they know that an officer or deputy has a history that could impeach his or her testimony.

The U-T requested Brady information from other Southern California prosecutors, which also did not release the names.

Document

In San Diego, Tanney released three internal documents specifically requested by the Watchdog that detail how the Brady Index is maintained and updated, but nothing in those records spells out the extent of any misconduct or which departments are affected.

The Watchdog sought the information in advance of a civil trial requested by a woman known as Jane Doe, who was violated in a 7-Eleven bathroom by former San Diego police officer Anthony Arevalos.

The case, scheduled to begin Aug. 12 in U.S. District Court, focuses on police trustworthiness and officer misconduct.

Among other things, Doe and her lawyers allege San Diego police command staff knew about previous complaints against Arevalos and did nothing to stop him from preying on young women.

The city has paid $2.3 million to settle 12 lawsuits filed by victims of Arevalos, who is now serving eight-plus years in prison, although that may be reduced because the most serious charge against him was overturned on an evidentiary issue.

Doe wants more than money.

She is asking a federal judge to impose an independent monitor on the department, which she claims is fraught with cronyism and protects officers rather than investigates misconduct allegations.

Linda Workman, one of the lawyers representing Doe in the federal lawsuit, said she could not discuss what she has learned while preparing for trial due to a court order.

She noted that tens of thousands of pages of evidence have been sealed at the city’s request. She also said the proper handling of the Brady Index and transparency with the information it contains is critical to maintaining public confidence in police agencies.